'49-'17

As many other reviewers noticed, the movie is full of cliches and some continuity errors especially relating to the age of the characters. Indeed the title is '49-'17, so some characters should be much older than you see in the movie. I wondered if the "49" might be related not to the real year, but to a sense of "westerness" as identity that the judge feels. I mention this because in "Roughing it" by Twain, "real" western people (he writes in the 1870s) define themselves as fortyniners - and shun the tender-feet who just emigrated... however the title kind of points out they literally meant the judge had been out west in 1849, in which case... the movies wasn't really so deeply thought of...

However, I strangely found it enjoyable. It was described as a parody, which some people doubt. I did think some scenes were indeed to funny to be intended seriously. I will not fully spoiler even a movie like this, but one characters uses gold nuggets as stones to chase a wolf away and he does not realize they are not simple rocks.

The story is weak or rather forces some deep suspension of disbelief. In any case it was a fun watch.

A judge "out East" misses the days of his youth out west and hires a man to go out and find actors who will populate the old deserted town he once lived in. The man he sends ends up in San Diego (excellent scenery in the pigeon feeding scenes) and happens upon an old west show that is failing dismally. They are ready to take the judge up on his offer to populate "Nugget Notch" and the story goes from there.

Wildly improbable coincedences, an old mystery cleared up and on and on. Some of the story will have you scratching your head in confusion.

Nice diversion for a late night's viewing though. Early western by a rare woman director. Recommended marginally.

I love silent films and have perhaps reviewed more than anyone. However, sometimes a silent is just bad--even if the print is pretty good. The plot for "49-17" is pretty stupid and the film never rises to the level of anything approaching good. Now I DO understand that films of the day were not as wonderfully written and executed a films just a decade later, but even for 1917, this is a pretty crappy film.

An old judge laments how he lost his daughter and wife many years the before--back in the "Gold Rush" days. It seems she got bored and ran off with his baby daughter. Ironically, he discovered gold soon after that and became rich--but still regrets losing them. After a very, very contrived portion involving the recreation of an old west town, the man responsible for breaking up his happy home returns and they have it out in a series of dastardly encounters. Whatever.

The bottom line is that the plot never seems convincing in the least and never makes much sense. You might not get that from my quick summary--but the film never becomes interesting, convincing or even worth your time. To top it off, it's bundled on DVD with "The Ocean Waif"--a highly deteriorated that lacks an ending--it disintegrated and you are just provided a written description of several HUGELY important climactic scenes! Save your money!

102 years after its original release, I was impressed by this feature, that was tightly directed by talented Ruth Ann Baldwin. Based on "The Old West Per Contract", a short story written by William Wallace Hook (who wrote several science-fiction novels), the frame story is quite original: in 1917 a judge wants to revive his happy days as a gold prospector, during the gold rush of 1849, and orders his secretary to stage a fake Old West town where he can spend his last days. However, the following events are a string of common places usually found in the melodrama genre, spiced with lust and greed. Fortunately Baldwin handles the whole show with energy, stages many outdoor scenes, and adds a welcome dose of humor and villainous actions provided by Jean Hersholt as the baddie. I found interesting how life and death are treated in this film, compared to movies of these days. This has nothing to do with the movie, it is just a reflection of mine, after watching how the script avoids acts of extreme violence or killing the characters. It seems as if life had more value in those cinematic days, and I hope that we come back to reason and start respecting other people's lives. Watch it.

I'd like to hear the story of how this mess of a movie came to be. The home video description goes out of the way to call it a parody, but a viewing offers no support of this. No, rather, this is the kind of film that deserves to be parodied. Part of the story is similar to another 1917 Western, Douglas Fairbanks's "Wild and Woolly", which was intentionally comical. In both films, a fake Western town is made to please the notions of a man from New York of the old West. As opposed to "Wild and Woolly", however, the old judge in this picture knows it's fake because he planned it--in an attempt to relive his youth as a '49er (that is, a gold digger in California's Gold Rush of the 1840s-1850s). The only seeming attempt at humor here is some gunplay by the judge that frightens the troupe of actors for his re-created town.

That "'49-'17" isn't a comedy or parody isn't the problem; rather, that was an unused solution to its mess. Instead, the filmmakers appear to have tried to cover the film up with a lot of title cards, which seem to have reworked the original scenario, as the titles and what we see don't always add up. There may have been some considerable editing done, too, as the resulting film today is choppy in places. None of this avoids what remains a sloppy, poorly-paced story, though.

Furthermore, the story's chronology and sense of aging is illogical. Through many flashbacks, the plot moves back and forth between the judge's days as a '49er to the present year of 1917 (hence the title). That's a time gap of 60 years or more, depending on when the judge took part in California's gold rush. The judge's aging between these periods is the closest to being plausible; the rest makes no sense. The baddie Gentleman Jim Raynor and his accomplice appear in '49 and '17 with the exact same appearance, as men somewhere around their 30s. Peggy is suggested as being a once-abandoned child from the gold rush, but she can't be any older than in her 20s by 1917. Additionally, the film is full of Western melodramatic contrivances and clichés, which just become boring when constructed so poorly and situated among such enormous continuity problems. F. Gwynplaine MacIntyre already took the fitting pun for an IMDb review title for this film: fool's gold, indeed.

One part I found interesting was Jean Hersholt's image as Gentleman Jim Raynor, who's clearly signified as the bad cowboy by his black dress and goatee, and he carried a mean look throughout the picture. Too bad such skillful character acting is wasted on this mess.